Popular Illustration Software "Clip Studio Paint" announces change to its single-time purchase model, going towards subscription based updates.

[KaitouX]

Summary

 

Popular illustration software Clip Studio Paint announced this week that starting from version 2.0 it's going to be changing its business model, making subscriptions more prominent. Clip Studio Paint is popular between artists in great part due to its Comic/Illustration focused feature set and single-time purchase model, so the new model is being heavily criticized by the users. Celsys, company who makes the software, released the following image to illustrate their new business model:

The new system would work the following way:

Current license owners would receive features updates until the last update before the Ver. 2.0 release(H1 2023), and stability updates until the 3.0 release. Versions 1.X would continue to work.

People who buy the Ver. 2.0 will have access only to stability updates, no feature updates at all.

People who are already on the existing monthly subscription will have access to all updates.

Anyone of the first 2 groups can subscribe to an annual Update Pass to get access to updates for one year, if the user doesn't renew the Update Pass the software would get downgraded to the last owned version.

 

Quotes

Quote

Celsys announced version 2.0 of Clip Studio Paint, its popular digital illustration and animation software, alongside plans to move over to a monthly subscription for updates to the service when it launches. It’s left some longtime fans who praised it for its one-time purchase model feeling very betrayed.

An announcement on the Clip Studio website states that “from 2023 onwards, the current Version 1 (the one-time purchase, perpetual version for Windows/macOS, ‘Version 1.x’ hereafter), offered as a download and physical version will no longer receive feature updates free of charge.”

This has subsequently outraged members of the artist community, who previously heralded the service as a fantastic one-time purchase alternative to software as a service applications like Adobe Photoshop, effectively adopting a similar business model that fans of Clip Studio Paint were trying to avoid in the first place.

...

Because of these changes, consumers could feel forced into accepting the third option, a subscription for existing users called an “Upgrade Pass” that is valid for one year, which will update their existing 1.x version to 2.0 and continue updating it to include additional upgrades and new features as they release.

...

Pricing for the Upgrade Pass and the standalone version 2.0 software has yet to be revealed, but the announcement tries to reassure existing customers that “Update Passes will be sold for a lower price than Monthly Usage Plans.” New customers will be able to sign up for a monthly subscription without already having Clip Studio Paint version 1.x.

 

My thoughts

 Another software going towards subscription based monetization, I wouldn't be surprised if the intention is to go fully subscription based by the release of Ver. 3.0. The worst part of the announcement in my opinion is that Version 2.0 buyers won't receive any feature updates at all, effectively forcing users to get either an annual or monthly subscription to get access to feature updates in a software that will have been just released. Though people that just bought the software with the expectation they would continue to receive updates for some time, as the software has been getting updates for many years, getting suddenly told they will only receive a few months worth of updates if they don't buy the "Season Pass/DLC" is also pretty bad.

I use Clip Studio, but wanted to move to Krita for some time due to the lack of Linux support on Clip Studio, this change make me look forward even more to Krita improvements and new features, so I can finally make the change without missing useful features. This model change might greatly increase Krita popularity as a FOSS alternative, at least as long Celsys doesn't backtrack on their decision. I'm guessing many will continue using the older 1.X versions for quite some time, but with Windows seemingly going back to getting new versions every 3 years, it might start to have issues with those new Windows versions, many others will probably look into PaintTool SAI, Krita and other alternatives.

 

Sources

https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/22/23316413/clip-studio-paint-subscription-plan-angry-artists-digital-illustration

https://gizmodo.com/clip-studio-paint-celsys-photoshop-1849442803

https://fossbytes.com/clip-studio-paint-adds-update-pass-and-upsets-its-users/

[Noah0302]

Dude I absolutely hate Subscription Models, just waiting for Windows to charge monthly now...

 

They could have at least provided future updates for existing customers, but no, you better pay up. Reminds me of the whole Teamveiwer Saga with Linus

[Rauten]

10 minutes ago, Noah0302 said:

Dude I absolutely hate Subscription Models, just waiting for Windows to charge monthly now...

Now THAT would get people to switch to Linux.

 

21 minutes ago, KaitouX said:

People who buy the Ver. 2.0 will have access only to stability updates, no feature updates at all.

People who are already on the existing monthly subscription will have access to all updates.

Any one of the first 2 groups can subscribe to an annual Update Pass to get access to updates for one year, if the user doesn't renew the Update Pass the software would get downgraded to the last owned version.

The highlighted part seems ultra-scummy to me. If I already paid for access to the updates, why the hell are you downgrading me?

[Isuck Assimov]

KILL it dead !

Abandon ship and go back to the roots !

https://www.systemax.jp/en/sai/

based Paint Tool Sai (License is a one-time payment of 40 bucks after the 31 day test phase)

[Roswell]

Single purchase software with lifetime updates isn’t a sustainable business model. Once you saturate your market, it’s game over and nobody gets anymore updates.

 

I don’t see an issue with having to purchase a new license for a new version. This is how the majority of software has worked since the beginning. 
 

Do you really expect a developer to sell you software and then provide you with 50 years worth of new versions?

[KaitouX]

12 minutes ago, Roswell said:

Single purchase software with lifetime updates isn’t a sustainable business model. Once you saturate your market, it’s game over and nobody gets anymore updates.

 

I don’t see an issue with having to purchase a new license for a new version. This is how the majority of software has worked since the beginning. 
 

Do you really expect a developer to sell you software and then provide you with 50 years worth of new versions?

Releasing a new version and requiring payment for it is fine, blocking updates to said new version behind an annual subscription, and downgrading the software back to the original if you stop paying for the subscription, not so much.

This just looks like they're preparing to make it subscription only in the future.

[porina]

I was looking at this in the recent past. Depending on the software platform some of them are already sub only.

 

I guess the full sub model they're going after is like Adobe's. Access to latest version as long as you pay. Stop paying, you get nothing.

 

Personally my preferred model, other than pay once forever which I agree with @Roswell isn't very sustainable, is the pay once per major version, but you keep access to it even if you stop paying. Doesn't look like they're offering this. Looks like they only offer perpetual licences for minor versions, which seems petty. You could argue what counts as minor or major version. Again comparing with other software, a major version you might expect once a year or longer.

 

I'd also be very cautious how "perpetual" licenses are anyway. I've lost access to software which I have a licence for as there is no longer any way to activate it. If it requires any form of activation server access on new installs, don't assume perpetual is perpetual. Especially if it is hardware tied activations.

 

Magix (owners of Vegas) I think are the best example of how to do it ok-ish. Log in, and you see all the software you own, and how many activations you have. You can deactivate from web and reinstall. I think there is some kind of time limit so you can't activate a ton and use them offline until it needs a refresh.

 

Adobe Photoshop (Elements) I'd rate as 2nd tier. Maybe for their full versions they do the Magix model, but for lower tier like Elements, there is no way to release a licence other than from the install. If your disk dies or whatever so you no longer have access to it, you can't free up an install to use elsewhere. I'm actually using an even older version which uses serial number activation since that still works, even if I lose some newer features.

 

Corel Paint Shop seem pretty bad. There doesn't seem to be any way to transfer installs to a new system even after attaching licence to online account, which they force you to do anyway. I'd also put DxO in this group. I have an older version of Optics Pro. Couldn't activate on new install. Contacted support and they basically said it is unsupported now. So even with installer and serial I can't use it.

 

Given all the above I'm looking more and more at "free" offerings to get by with.

[TetraSky]

Never heard of it before and just like that I lost any sort of potential interest I might have had toward it if I had seen it before.

Fully expect alternatives to show up soon enough, if they don't already exist. Like Photopea, which is a free online photoshop-like took.

[Arika]

As someone who uses Clip Studio, i couldn't give a shit, i own a perpetual license to V1.X, so i will keep using it. the changes don't affect current licenses.

 

if there's a feature that appears in V2.x or V3.x then i'll buy the perpetual license for that version (it's like $50). It's really no different than how photoshop used to work. I still have a perpetual license for Photoshop CS5 which i also use. there is no reason for me to get any newer version of Photoshop.

[KaitouX]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

As someone who uses Clip Studio, i couldn't give a shit, i own a perpetual license to V1.X, so i will keep using it. the changes don't affect current licenses.

 

if there's a feature that appears in V2.x or V3.x then i'll buy the perpetual license for that version (it's like $50). It's really no different than how photoshop used to work. I still have a perpetual license for Photoshop CS5 which i also use. there is no reason for me to get any newer version of Photoshop.

Yeah, I expect most people that already own it to just keep using it.

 

One issue is that we don't know if they are going to sell licenses for the versions after 2.0.1, hopefully they do, but for now the last accessible version without having to pay for the subscription is going to be 2.0.1. It looks like that if you want a feature added on let's say version 2.7, you would have to either wait for a possible purchasable 3.0 license, or get the annual subscription.

I really have a feeling they might go the same way as Photoshop, and remove totally the option to buy the license in the future, which is really unfortunate for people that might want access to the features that might be added in the future without having to pay for a subscription.

[williamcll]

If I want a subscription art software I would just go with photoshop.

[rcmaehl]

My Wife apparently was already on a required subscription for the iOS app which now includes the Windows version so it doesn't seem like much changed for us. 

[BuckGup]

9 hours ago, Noah0302 said:

Dude I absolutely hate Subscription Models, just waiting for Windows to charge monthly now...

Windows is already like that in the server realm in addition to per core pricing 

[Kisai]

5 hours ago, porina said:

I was looking at this in the recent past. Depending on the software platform some of them are already sub only.

 

I guess the full sub model they're going after is like Adobe's. Access to latest version as long as you pay. Stop paying, you get nothing.

No, Adobe's is full on blackmail, not only do not have access to the software, but you don't have access to anything "in the cloud" . For reference Adobe perpetual licensing was originally around $1200 USD for the entire suite, or $700 for Photoshop alone. But also everyone I know only updated every 1-3 versions BECAUSE it was stupidly overpriced, and often only updated because either Windows/OSX (PPC->Intel was a big driver of CS5 updates) OS updates broke it, or some new feature came down the pipe that they really wanted, or 'brushes' in photoshop. Or codec support in Premiere.

 

If you dig out license costs. You may even discover that the prices were even higher in your country. I distinctly remember the $1200USD price because that's what I paid for it, but that might have not been the master collection.

 

5 hours ago, porina said:

Personally my preferred model, other than pay once forever which I agree with @Roswell isn't very sustainable, is the pay once per major version, but you keep access to it even if you stop paying. Doesn't look like they're offering this. Looks like they only offer perpetual licences for minor versions, which seems petty. You could argue what counts as minor or major version. Again comparing with other software, a major version you might expect once a year or longer.

 

I don't really see anything wrong with perpetual licenses. And for reference "Manga Studio 4", and later 5 (CSP 1.4.x), when sold by Smith Micro, where already new license costs. CSP EX also goes on sale like several times a year. Under Smith Micro, they never updated CSP, but the "Manga Studio" version came with a selection of translated assets which are only available in CSP through the Clip Studio asset hub.

 

What I take offence to, is CSP trying for an eviler version of the Adobe SaaS model. This is hardly different from Adobe going "Hey, we saw you still have CS6, f**k you, for not using CC" no really, stop before you get sued.

 

 

If you purchased MS5 or CSP at any point after Celsys got the rights to sell the English version, you've still likely saved thousands of dollars over using photoshop if you are doing digital art, comics, manga, "webtoons"/webcomics, and so forth.

 

So at this point I would be fine with paying for a perpetual license again. 10 years is a good run. 

 

However...

 

5 hours ago, porina said:

I'd also be very cautious how "perpetual" licenses are anyway. I've lost access to software which I have a licence for as there is no longer any way to activate it. If it requires any form of activation server access on new installs, don't assume perpetual is perpetual. Especially if it is hardware tied activations.

CSP requires activation, and you can only use it on one device. So if you install it on your PC and Mac, you can only use it on the one device at a time, AND IT CHECKS.

 

You know what else does that? Davinci Resolve Studio. Unlike Adobe and CSP however, the software is essentially free until you want hardware acceleration. Because surprise surprise, it turns out that saving hours on your workflow is worth paying for.

 

5 hours ago, porina said:

Magix (owners of Vegas) I think are the best example of how to do it ok-ish. Log in, and you see all the software you own, and how many activations you have. You can deactivate from web and reinstall. I think there is some kind of time limit so you can't activate a ton and use them offline until it needs a refresh.

Nah, Magix is terrible. They nag you to update and pay for new perpetual versions every year through their updating tool. So does Corel. Also this entire process lags the computer on every start up. If you thought Epic was bad about doing automatic crap, Magix is worse, and Corel the worst of all, where the software won't even bloody start until it's finished nagging you, and if it screws up, the software just sits there in a busy loop until you kill it. Like yes, I have Corel products, and I've pretty much stopped installing them because the damn license check/version check renders the PC entirely inoperable for several minutes at a time.

 

Here's how I'd "fix everything":

 

1. Only offer two licenses

a) Perpetual (paid annually) - LTS, where you decide what version you want to pay for, and you get all the minor updates to that Major version until the next major version. Will operate offline, once launched while online. If you pay for version X at the end of it's cycle, then you get whatever next major version is within a year.

b) Cloud (paid monthly, prorated by hourly usage) - Bleeding edge, the software tracks every launch, close, and every time the mouse cursor is over the application, along with saving 64x64 audit screenshots of the application window every 30 minutes to track activity.  Does not operate offline. You get billed by the hour, and at the end of the month it calculates how many 8-hour units to give a "days of use" to bill. So if you use the software for 80 hours in a month you're billed for 10 days, rather than 30, regardless if that was 20x4 hour days or 5x16 hour days.

 

2. Only offer active support for the latest version. Anyone who has maintained software, either commercially or for free, knows that maintaining older versions is a recipe for disaster and sucks away development time from the current version. Once a new Major version is out, the previous Major version goes into LTS (bug/security fixes only,) and any previous versions move to discontinued (no further support, officially.) You keep the downloads for all previous LTS final builds available.

 

Like you have to realize that the people behind CSP probably only have a small developer crew.

 

 

On the other side of the coin:

Artists, particularly western ones, all brought out the pitchforks because they do not like the cloud model, what-so-ever, and adobe has been rather nasty, that it chased off pretty much everyone who wasn't locked into the photoshop brushes away from it. Davinci or Final Cut are superior video editing tools, pretty much every office out there pushes alternatives to adobe acrobat for not only reading but editing PDF files because THEY do not want to pay for creative cloud either. Photoshop is easily replaced by a dozen different programs, free and perpetually licensed, but people don't end up using them (eg Corel Paint Shop Pro, I'd argue is more than feature comparable, as is Krita) because they are locked into automations (eg brushes) that they already paid for in Photoshop.

 

Only new artists have a choice. They paint in the program they first picked up, and end up saving PSD files when they need to move it into another program, even if it's not photoshop.

 

 

 

[porina]

20 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Nah, Magix is terrible. They nag you to update and pay for new perpetual versions every year through their updating tool. So does Corel. Also this entire process lags the computer on every start up. If you thought Epic was bad about doing automatic crap, Magix is worse, and Corel the worst of all, where the software won't even bloody start until it's finished nagging you, and if it screws up, the software just sits there in a busy loop until you kill it. Like yes, I have Corel products, and I've pretty much stopped installing them because the damn license check/version check renders the PC entirely inoperable for several minutes at a time.

I don't have that problem. I don't install the stand alone "updater" which as you say seems to be more of an advertising pusher. Also turn off the "news" popup in options. Done. I never see them. My version of Vegas is old enough they don't update it any more anyway. And for software that is current, you can manually update from inside it.

 

Also the "please update to the latest version" nags are widespread in the software space. Pretty much every "free" version which has a commercial offering does it to some extent, and may of the cheaper paid ones too.

 

20 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Photoshop is easily replaced by a dozen different programs, free and perpetually licensed, but people don't end up using them (eg Corel Paint Shop Pro, I'd argue is more than feature comparable, as is Krita) because they are locked into automations (eg brushes) that they already paid for in Photoshop.

I still own and use Jasc Paint Shop Pro 7, from before Corel bought them and ruined it. Of course, it is showing its age in some ways, but also its simplicity makes some operations much easier than modern software trying to be too smart for its own good.

 

In my usage of both Photoshop Elements and Corel Paint Shop Pro for photography, PSE is clearly better. PSP is showing its old school roots a bit too much and when it comes to light adjustments it is much worse.

[Taf the Ghost]

Adobe makes a lot of money with their Sub-model on a stupid high Margin. However, in most software spaces, it's only the top 1-2 companies that can survive on the model. So I can understand exactly why they'd be moving models. 

 

However, just because the license lasts forever doesn't mean you have to support it. The LTS approach works well for Linux Distros and more companies really should have copied it and been more clear about it. They support the one-time versions for X amount of time and the rare security update to Y point. Somehow Microsoft even managed to figure out this play and they're doing fine with it.

[thechinchinsong]

Shame I just got some family members into digital art with CSP licenses this summer. I guess it doesn't really matter to them since they'd be fine with 1.x until they touch more advanced features.

[AlTech]

On 8/26/2022 at 1:02 PM, Roswell said:

Single purchase software with lifetime updates isn’t a sustainable business model. Once you saturate your market, it’s game over and nobody gets anymore updates.

 

I don’t see an issue with having to purchase a new license for a new version. This is how the majority of software has worked since the beginning. 
 

Do you really expect a developer to sell you software and then provide you with 50 years worth of new versions?

Cannot agree with this more.

 

If people want a perpetual style purchasing system then fair enough they should be able to buy a license for a Version or an update pass of sorts. But otherwise where's the justification to make new versions or improve the software if people aren't continuing to pay for it? The answer is there's none.

 

I think people are more opposed to subscriptions rather than per version licensing so it might have been a smarter play by the devs to just offer both the update pass and the version 2 license.

[RoseLuck462]

Welp, now is this time to buy the single use license why you can.

[Kisai]

7 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Cannot agree with this more.

 

If people want a perpetual style purchasing system then fair enough they should be able to buy a license for a Version or an update pass of sorts. But otherwise where's the justification to make new versions or improve the software if people aren't continuing to pay for it? The answer is there's none.

 

I think people are more opposed to subscriptions rather than per version licensing so it might have been a smarter play by the devs to just offer both the update pass and the version 2 license.

That is not how it's being interpreted. It's being interpreted as moving directly to the Adobe model, where you pay for the perpetual license and if you don't pay for the update license, it stays on the last version perpetual licence 2.0.x . So by version 3 there will only be a cloud license.

eg the last version you will ever be able to get a perpetual license for is 2.0 not 2.1. Which is actually worse than how Adobe switched, because Adobe at least updated CS3/4/5/6 with minor/security updates until nearly 2017. CS2 only became "free" in a sense because they shut down the activation servers. It's not free, it's just a VLK that doesn't use an activation server. Same problem with Paint tool SAI, people associate "not being updated" with "being free".

 

But open source software tends to also just survive if it has feature-parity with the leading product, because it pulls people away from pirating software with a "good enough" alternative. Case in point Blender is "good enough" that 3D Studio Max and Maya are no longer necessary in 3D pipelines, it's entirely possible to do everything without pushing it through another product. That's how you know a product is "feature complete", when the one program does everything good enough that you don't need a second (commercial) product.

 

CSP is "feature complete" as far as the Japanese user base is concerned. You can create manga, or even short anime with it. However in the West, CSP is often not the the final product you have to use, you have to use Photoshop and InDesign if you're going to print it to adjust the color and text setting. The text layout in CSP is still "Japanese" market styled, which you see in a lot of "Webtoon" comics (vertically long text with minimal bubbles/tails if at all,) but in western comics it lacks the ability to do western style comic bubbles (where they are usually present as "dialog bubbles".) 

[AlTech]

9 hours ago, Kisai said:

That is not how it's being interpreted. It's being interpreted as moving directly to the Adobe model, where you pay for the perpetual license and if you don't pay for the update license, it stays on the last version perpetual licence 2.0.x .

I thought the Adobe model was the subscriptions model.

9 hours ago, Kisai said:

So by version 3 there will only be a cloud license.

Okay but how do you expect the devs to continue to keep working on it if they're not continuing to make money?

Is requiring a subscription a little bit lazy on the part of the devs? Arguably it is, a version specific perpetual license is another way to offer it but that's more hassle and there's no guarantee that people will pay for new versions.

The exact implementation that this company chose is a little scummy and is a bit more painful than they needed to make it. For instance if I were them I would have just said the update pass grants you the the right to use any version released during the time the user is subscribed to the update pass and that if you stop subscribing then the latest version you're entitled to use is the last version released whilst you were subscribed to the update pass.

 

The other way the devs could have avoided this is by switching to subscription based pricing, increasing the price for business customers and people using their product to make money, and then offering the product for free to people who don't use their product to make money.

 

9 hours ago, Kisai said:

eg the last version you will ever be able to get a perpetual license for is 2.0 not 2.1. Which is actually worse than how Adobe switched, because Adobe at least updated CS3/4/5/6 with minor/security updates until nearly 2017.

Big companies have the resources to pull this off a lot better than small ones.

 

A small company offering support for a legacy product takes time away from them improving existing products or making new products.

9 hours ago, Kisai said:

 

 

[porina]

58 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

For instance if I were them I would have just said the update pass grants you the the right to use any version released during the time the user is subscribed to the update pass and that if you stop subscribing then the latest version you're entitled to use is the last version released whilst you were subscribed to the update pass.

Sub models are priced assuming continuous subscription. The method you describe could mean someone could sub for one month each year or so to catch up and get 90+% discount effectively. Or worst case a one time sub cost gets you a perpetual licence. 

[AlTech]

15 minutes ago, porina said:

Sub models are priced assuming continuous subscription. The method you describe could mean someone could sub for one month each year or so to catch up and get 90+% discount effectively. Or worst case a one time sub cost gets you a perpetual licence. 

Jetbrains has a system for giving people a fallback perpetual license once they've subscribed for 12 months and then the fallback license is updated as long as the customer is still subscribed.

 

Something like that could work for CSP.

[porina]

3 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Jetbrains has a system for giving people a fallback perpetual license once they've subscribed for 12 months and then the fallback license is updated as long as the customer is still subscribed.

A minimum sub period would help to earn that license, but without knowing what other conditions may be present, once you have got the minimum sub could you not do what I described and say sub once a year to get updates in one go? Or do you have to build up again if there is a break?

 

A problem as always is there is a gap between professionals who earn regularly using the software, and the small user who does not. Do you pay up front in one large lump? A monthly payment sub? Or maybe a hybrid. A perpetual licence up front, and a smaller sub after that for update/support. Offer cheaper feature limited versions as well? As a hobbyist in many areas I wouldn't want to sub to things I might infrequently use, and a large up front cost is too much. So I use feature reduced versions e.g. Photoshop Elements, and have to use multiple tools to get feature coverage. Some "free" stuff is good for specific functions, if you can work with their quirks and limitations.

[AlTech]

10 minutes ago, porina said:

A minimum sub period would help to earn that license, but without knowing what other conditions may be present, once you have got the minimum sub could you not do what I described and say sub once a year to get updates in one go? Or do you have to build up again if there is a break?

I believe you have to build it up again if there is a break.

10 minutes ago, porina said:

A problem as always is there is a gap between professionals who earn regularly using the software, and the small user who does not. Do you pay up front in one large lump? A monthly payment sub? Or maybe a hybrid. A perpetual licence up front, and a smaller sub after that for update/support. Offer cheaper feature limited versions as well? As a hobbyist in many areas I wouldn't want to sub to things I might infrequently use, and a large up front cost is too much. So I use feature reduced versions e.g. Photoshop Elements, and have to use multiple tools to get feature coverage. Some "free" stuff is good for specific functions, if you can work with their quirks and limitations.

Isolating the features Businesses use and putting them behind a higher tier which costs a lot more is an option.